In January of 1918, amidst the First World War, President Woodrow Wilson addressed Congress in one of the most historic speeches of that time period. Wilson’s address proposed a blueprint for achieving a peaceful world; he called it “The Fourteen Points.” He proposed things like open diplomacy, free trade, freedom of the seas, and the creation of a “general association of nations” to ensure peace is kept. The speech itself was written by him and a team of advisors called “The Inquiry.” This team assembled scholars and challenged them to rethink everything they knew about International Relations and create these guidelines to not only present American ideals worldwide, but to prevent any future conflicts.1

To fully understand why Wilson thought to propose these ideas, it is critical to understand what the world looked like in 1918 and in the years leading up to it. Europe was four years into the first World War, having never experienced anything like this before. The war had taken the lives of millions, destroyed regions completely, and collapsed empires. This war was different from anything anyone had ever seen, partly because of the introduction of new weaponry and rapid advancements in technology; machine guns, poison gas, and tanks led to unimaginable numbers of casualties. In response to this, Wilson’s 14 points gave people hope that his ideas could break these violent patterns and create a more peaceful world.

Wilson’s intentions with these points seemed positive as the document portrays such powerful idealism. Wilson believed that his moral principles would make a good guideline for foreign policy. His language throughout the document was clear and uplifting, making it appealing to more than just world leaders. For example, he framed the war as a way to make the world “safe for democracy.” However, reading back on these points over a century later reveals contradictions. His rhetoric aimed to create trust from citizens in their leaders by saying things like “open covenants,” which suggests no more secret diplomacy, which is what he believed caused the war, but scholars like Stephen Bates argue that this was a false promise. The peace negotiations just a year later, in 1919, involved the same secret diplomacy that Wilson claimed to want to avoid.2 This contradiction does not discredit Wilson or make him a liar, but it does force the reader to consider how attainable these ideals truly are or if they were simply wishful thinking on Wilson’s part. Given that Wilson’s intended audience for this document was extremely broad, while he did speak to Congress, he also spoke to both the Allied and Central powers, but mainly regular citizens living in war zones, desperate for peace. Contradictions in such a hopeful document can have the opposite effect of what he intended and create distrust in the American government.

The most influential part of this speech is his proposal for a League of Nations, or the creation of a global organization whose purpose is to resolve such disputes peacefully. However, at the time, not everyone felt it was as influential. Roberto Rabel notes that the final peace settlement after World War I did not fully reflect Wilson’s ideas; European nations prioritized their own national interest, and even the U.S. Senate refused to join the League.3 The U.S. Senate had concerns about being dragged into foreign wars, and many senators were irrecincilables who believed the U.S should return to isolationism. Implementing such new and different ideals not just on a national stage, but on a worldwide one, is challenging. Ruti Teitel notes that Wilson’s difficulty came in trying to turn his ideals into lasting institutions.4 Countries were used to operating through secret alliances and rivalries, proposing an open diplomacy required a complete shift in thinking that many countries and leaders were not prepared for. This document serves as a reminder that redesigning centuries-old world politics is possible, but it does not come without difficulty.